There is some narrative here around other athletes performances and how relatively they weren't so good - thus backwardly reducing the possibility that wind was a factor etc etc.
We have to remember the round where this happened was the quarter-final round, so it's very possible many athletes weren't expecting to run fast in this race. Some athletes do like to target a race like the 2nd round to really put down an effort and we have seen this before - but to point to a singular athlete and say "well they only ran this" is kind of extreme conjecture and is devoid of any nuance.
Gail Devers gets mentioned. Let's look at her season in 1988. She ran 10.86 with a +3.0 to win the NCAA's in June, but by the time the trials rolled around wasn't exactly in top form. In fact she ran 11.15 with a +3.4 in the heats, the 10.97 in the QF with the "0.0" and then 11.24 in the semi with a +1.3 and didn't even make the final. So it's fair to say that looking at her trials results, this was not exactly the Gail Devers of the early 90's or even the NCAAs of that 1988 season. Since it's a Sunday morning and I'm just drinking a coffee I will do the numbers and facts for you all. If you correct the times of Devers allowing for the wind this is what we get - 11.15 > 11.34 in the heat and 11.24 > 11.33 in the semi. So Gail Devers was in mid/low 11 second shape at the trials. Let's pick an assumed wind of +5 as it's been suggested it was - 10.97 > 11.21. Sorry but you can all discount Gail Devers as some sort of evidence here.
But if you want to look at an athlete look at Sheila Echols. Sheila had one season in an 11 year career running under 11 seconds. 1988. In 1988 she ran under 11.0 3 times - all at the trials (as she should in the Olympic year!) She ran 10.83 in the first round with a +3.9 wind (an adjusted 11.03) and 10.99 +1.3 in the semi (adj.11.07) and 11.00 +1.2 in the final (adj.11.08). So Sheila Echols was in 11.00-11.10 shape for three of the 4 races she ran in Indianapolis including the most important 2 - the semi and final. The best part of this evidence is that she would have managed to morph from a 11.00-11.10 performer to a 10.8 performer in the space of a few hours because she ran her very wind adjusted 10.83 a matter of hours before supposedly running the same time with absolutely no wind.
Is that enough factual analysis guys? Look it was windy. Really windy. It wasn't just from the side, it was from behind. The triple jump evidenced it and so did the sprint performances including Gwen Torrence's QF where she ran 10.78 with a +5.0 wind within 10 minutes of the magically and mythical Flo-Jo sub 10.5. Was she also on drugs? Probably. Was she running with a zephyr of a breeze behind her - yes, as were all competitors that day.
